OldTools Archive

Recent Bios FAQ

263020 Thomas Conroy 2017‑08‑19 Re: Robert Duke chisel
Jim Thompson wrote (message 249312, 2014‑07‑18):
 "Since there is so little info available about Robert Duke chisels, I thought
Ishould post a couple of pictures. The mark is very clear.
https://picasaweb.google.com/102358420595488787966/MysteryTo
ol?authuser=0&feat=directlink
I (Conroy here again) just bought a chisel on eBay with a partly illegible mark.
The photo for the listing is excellent, clearer than the chisel itself was when
I first saw it:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/192259021014

( third photo). From the chisel itself I could make out "Robert," "Cast," and
the triangle; and after thrashing around a bit with "Robert O??", "Robert Dow?",
"Robertson", and so on, I ran it down in the Archive with Jim's crystal-clear
photo and comment. The pleasure of being able to start a message as I did is
incredible, but it doesn't really surprise me. He's still there looking after
us.
Since I'm now an owner with some stake, I'll weigh in on a discussion that
developed later in the thread. It was suggested that this Robert Duke might be a
Robert Duke & Co. that ceased operations in Sydney around 1855.  I'd say: no
way. Look at the typography of the words, thin monoline letters completely
lacking any kind of serif. This isn't a nineteenth century mark, or maybe just
barely before the turn of the century. And the aura of the my chisel, all the
little hints of color and shape, seems American to me. I could be wrong on
"American," but there's no way the typography could be pre-1855. There must have
been two Robert Duke companies, unrelated and probably in different companies.
I chasing Robert Duke I came across a person we ought to know about: William
Metcalf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Metcalf_(steel)

According to Wikipedia, After "1868 he was engaged continuously in steel
manufacturing, and in 1897 he organized the Braeburn Steel Company, of which he
was the head until his death[in 1909]. He is credited with having made the first
crucible steel in America." This was apparently, according to the "Crucible
Steel" entry, a simpler method than the English Huntsman process, involving
direct melting together of iron and carbon. In any case, the manufacture of cast
steel in America would have brought its price down sharply, and would mark the
point when laminated blades gave way to all-cast-steel blades. Useful dating
indication for a whole range of tools. Maybe others on the list know about
Metcalf, but I didn't.
Tom ConroyBerkeley
263024 Brent Beach <brent.beach@g...> 2017‑08‑19 Re: Robert Duke chisel
Hi

On 2017-08-19 01:21, Thomas Conroy via OldTools wrote:
> In any case, the manufacture of cast steel in America would have brought its
price down sharply, and would mark the point when laminated blades gave way to
all-cast-steel blades.

Interesting info on dating of Crucible Steel.

Stanley was still using laminated blades in 1935. I have one laminated 
blade made when they were stamping batch numbers on blades that dates 
from 1941. The change then could be associated with the diversion of 
steel into armament production.

So, while cost was a factor, it is possible that the advertising value 
of laminated blades meant they were being produced decades after the 
ready availability of good quality steel.

One other factor on laminated blades is the grinding effort - which 
Stanley advertised as much reduced. Before powered grinders were common, 
reduced grinding time when using stones may have been an important 
factor for some tool users.

The failure to resume production of laminated blades after the war may 
have been a result of much greater cost of production of laminated 
blades once tool steel production really got going.

Brent
-- 
Brent Beach
Victoria, BC, Canada
263025 Mark Pfeifer <markpfeifer@i...> 2017‑08‑19 Re: Robert Duke chisel
Good info! I have a beater Duke that I keep on the bench, and I always wondered
where the heck it came from.

As long we we’re talking about laminated blades . . . . . 

I use a lot of wooden bench planes. Almost all of them have very very thick
laminated irons.

I have no trouble at all getting a good edge on a typical Stanley iron. I have
no trouble at all keeping my chisels sharp. My left arm is completely bald.

I don’t know what I’m doing wrong but when I sharpen those big thick laminated
irons, I feel like it’s binary. I either get it perfect, or I spend 8 hours and
only manage to rub 1/4” of length off the iron.

I prefer to sharpen “by hand” even though I have 2 low speed grinders and a
tabletop belt sander. But with these big fat irons I’ve compromised with Thomas
Edison and I use the finest wheel of my 2 grinders, get it to hollow ground,
then use the stones. I don’t make a point of taking the hollow out, because of
course several stone sharpenings do that anyway.

If the Galoot consensus is that this is just the nature of big fat irons, I will
be satisfied and move on. But if I’m missing something in my sharpening
technique I’d love to know . . . . .

MPf.

Recent Bios FAQ